A review by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor has concluded that up to 80 per cent of the 7,000 rules governing where development can take place should go.

Last year, the Government faced a major battle over proposals to simplify planning laws, because they appeared to create a bias in favour of builders.

The proposals suggest changes to how that law is interpreted, in a process which could generate new pressure to develop more of the countryside.

The Liberal Democrat peer insisted that the changes would not weaken protections for greenfield areas and would clarify how new national planning policy should work.

But some of the changes, which could apply by March, are likely to be controversial because one of the areas under review is how councils assess housing need. Ministers are desperate to increase house building throughout England.

Last month, Nick Boles, the planning minister, caused a storm by saying that he wanted to see another 1,500 square miles of England developed for housing.

The Daily Telegraph led an eight-month Hands Off Our Land campaign earlier this year before the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was set, urging the Government not to weaken protections for greenfield and green belt land.

Lord Taylor was appointed in October to review thousands of pages of planning guidance which underlies the NPPF.

His review found that existing guidance was “not fit for purpose” and that the “historic accumulation of out-of-date, contradictory and unmanageable material must be brought to an end”.

When the panel started the review it thought that there were 6,000 pages of guidance, but discovered there were 7,000, much of it contradictory and dating from the 1960s.

The peer said: “No one bar my group has read all this as a body until now, so, unsurprisingly, it is full of internal contradiction.”

Lord Taylor said that the process to cut the regulations would be similar to the changes made to the NPPF, which involved 1,200 pages being reduced to just 52. His 45-page report recommended that the guidance should be “whittled down to an essential, coherent, accessible and well-managed suite of guidance that aids the delivery of good planning”.

The report recommended that work starts immediately so that the guidance is updated by March 28, the first anniversary of the NPPF.

The end result will be a website that is “vastly shorter than 7,000 pages, a similar process to the NPPF, proportionately, 70 per cent or 80 per cent” smaller.

Lord Taylor conceded that the changes to the guidance would be “entirely neutral”, although he admitted “there will be some arguments about what they should say”, adding “what goes into it may or may not increase or reduce protection”.

The public and planning experts would be able to access the website to make the system more “accountable”, he said. One area which could cause a major row between campaigners and developers is forecasts for future housing needs.

The report said that “guidance can and should clarify the 'ground rules’ for these processes, so there is clarity about approach … but guidance should support the application of local skills and judgment, not automate them”.

On Thursday night, Clive Betts, the Labour MP, who chairs the communities and local government committee, warned that smaller local planning authorities may rely too heavily on the guidance.

He said: “They have previously tried to weaken planning controls and we need to be very vigilant that it does not happen. The worry is that smaller planning authorities without expertise rely on this guidance to help them.

“What we need is a very thorough impact statement which would examine whether this would in practice weaken the planning guidance and controls that exist.”

Campaigners said that they were worried that Treasury officials might try to write an economic imperative through the guidance.

Shaun Spiers, the chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “Detail is all important in planning and we will be on high alert to ensure there are no unintended consequences for the countryside.”

Two consultations are planned into the changes. The first, which starts today, will seek views from the public on the principle of the changes. The review will then take place, and the public will be given the chance to comment on the changes in a second consultation.